Gas Prices

[Rich]

I didn't say his statement was responsible for the high fuel prices. I asked if anyone was suprised they were high given his view. The president is also on record for wanting high prices, he just didn't want them to climb so fast that they would impact his poll numbers.

No, you aren't really saying anything. You are just implying it. You are implying that the Obama administration is somehow responsible for the high gas prices without providing any real reasoning or facts to support the implication.

By your using Singapore as an example of higher oil consumption per person, you are making my case. You can't just say the US is greedy and thus we use more oil.

Sure, I can. Singapore is also greedy, as are other countries that are using so much oil per person. The truth is that China is one of the least greedy, and actually use very little oil per capita. Unfortunately, that is because their population is so huge that once they start using their "fair share" . . . well, let's just say that maybe Hocky is right on that one -- their use could eclipse us all.

Absolutely!! You seem to enjoy the good life here in America as well Rich.

Yes, I do. I also try to be responsible in my use of resources. That is why I own one hybrid and one all-electric vehicle, and have another all-electric vehicle on order. Have to admit though, the Jag is a splurge. That puppy will suck down some barrels of oil, no question. Hope there is some left by the time it is finished being restored.

Again, I think the key here is that we all seem to agree that we need to wean ourselves off of oil, but the conservatives don't think we can do it in this lifetime or the next without ruining our economy. That just sounds like a bunch of scare tactics and complete disregard for the magnitude of the problem. As it is, our economy seems pretty well hostage to what happens in the middle east, china, etc. Wouldn't energy independence help our economy more in the long run than getting there would damage it in the short term?

 

[Kevin]

No, you aren't really saying anything. You are just implying it. You are implying that the Obama administration is somehow responsible for the high gas prices without providing any real reasoning or facts to support the implication.

The president and some in his administration are on record as having said they would like to see higher gas prices. Their policies and rhetoric certainly haven't been on the side for lowering gas prices since taking office. I guess what I'm implying is that I would be more surprised if we had some of the lowest gas prices on record as opposed to the prices we are currently seeing. It's a combination of what they have done and what they haven't done. How much they have hurt I'm not sure, but they certainly have not helped.

Sure, I can. Singapore is also greedy, as are other countries that are using so much oil per person. The truth is that China is one of the least greedy, and actually use very little oil per capita. Unfortunately, that is because their population is so huge that once they start using their "fair share" . . . well, let's just say that maybe Hocky is right on that one -- their use could eclipse us all.

I guess I just don't equate the amount of consumed oil as being the best indication of greed. I would have to assume that Bill Gates has a carbon footprint many times larger than my own, but I wouldn't say he is a greedy man. The same for Al Gore, hyprocrit yes, but not neccessarily greedy.

Yes, I do. I also try to be responsible in my use of resources. That is why I own one hybrid and one all-electric vehicle, and have another all-electric vehicle on order. Have to admit though, the Jag is a splurge. That puppy will suck down some barrels of oil, no question. Hope there is some left by the time it is finished being restored.

Splurging is ok, it doesn't make us greedy individuals to treat ourselves from time to time. Please post some pictures when done, I have always been a fan of the older jags.

Again, I think the key here is that we all seem to agree that we need to wean ourselves off of oil, but the conservatives don't think we can do it in this lifetime or the next without ruining our economy. That just sounds like a bunch of scare tactics and complete disregard for the magnitude of the problem. As it is, our economy seems pretty well hostage to what happens in the middle east, china, etc. Wouldn't energy independence help our economy more in the long run than getting there would damage it in the short term?

Agreed that we need to start getting ourselves off of oil as much as possible. I think we can do so without ruining the economy. I greatly believe in America's ingenuity. Eventually an alternative form of energy will be produced that doesn't have the problems that current methods and technology all seem to have, and will be practicle and economical enough to at least greatly reduce our need for oil. It's the best method to try to steer us towards that direction that I think we differ. I like incentives for pursuing other forms of energy over punishment for not.

 

[Len44]

The president and some in his administration are on record as having said they would like to see higher gas prices. Their policies and rhetoric certainly haven't been on the side for lowering gas prices since taking office. I guess what I'm implying is that I would be more surprised if we had some of the lowest gas prices on record as opposed to the prices we are currently seeing. It's a combination of what they have done and what they haven't done. How much they have hurt I'm not sure, but they certainly have not helped.

Gosh, it looks to me as if oil prices begin a steady rise right after Bush was installed as Prez, and was only interupted for a short time due to 9/11. It peaked in '08, then fell precipitously right after Obama took office. So I fail to see any relevance to your inference that it is the current administration's policy to raise oil prices...and certainly not as some underhanded conspiracy.

Rising oil prices might be more readily understand during the Bush administration as a result of secret (and illegal) meetings with chaired by Dick Cheney Big Oil Execs and their reps and lobbyists to formulate United States Energy Policy and by the heavy Bush / Cheney ties with Big Oil. At least, that is what many of us figured was going on.

 

[Len44]

I guess I just don't equate the amount of consumed oil as being the best indication of greed. I would have to assume that Bill Gates has a carbon footprint many times larger than my own, but I wouldn't say he is a greedy man. The same for Al Gore, hyprocrit yes, but not neccessarily greedy.

I would hardly think one would want to start down the rode of name-calling of politicians, particularly if of a certain political persuasion. If we look at the relative number of self-righteous Congressmen (and former Congressmen) who have screeched at the top of their lungs about "family values" only to later have to resign due to affairs, preying on Congressional Pages, etc, etc., well, it is pretty clear in which political party the majority of the hypocrites hang out. One can readily include "Newt" in this roundup, as well as the latest embarrassment that is to be investigated for obstruction of justice stemming from the affair he had with the wife of an aide [John Ensign].

Not even getting into Jack Abramhoff and Tom Delay, and oh so many others convicted of corruption and sent to jail stemming from their service during the Bush years...:devil:

 

[Rich]

How much they have hurt I'm not sure, but they certainly have not helped.

I think they could help the most by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and trying to end the crisis in Libya as quickly and decisively as possible. Once the middle east calms down a little bit, I expect oil prices will pull back.

I guess I just don't equate the amount of consumed oil as being the best indication of greed.

I was using the term greed in the context of using more than our fair share of resources. We have 4.5% of the world's population, but we use almost 25% of the available supply of oil. Doesn't that seem just a tad bit greedy to you?

Please post some pictures when done, I have always been a fan of the older jags.

Hopefully, she will be finished later this year. Still have some re-chroming to do, and a complete interior re-do. But just to lighten up this thread, I'll post a recent picture. It's not off-topic, anyway. It is a gas guzzler, and was created by an Englishman (just like this thread).

It's the best method to try to steer us towards that direction that I think we differ. I like incentives for pursuing other forms of energy over punishment for not.

If all we are arguing over is the methods by which we achieve the same goals, then we are in a good place. Unfortunately, I think there are plenty of folks still denying that we need to be headed toward oil independence. As for the methods, some of it is semantics. You probably are referring to taxes as punishment, where I would call them a negative incentive. Much as we do with cigarettes. You want people to smoke less, you make it more expensive of a habit for them to engage in.

Enough of that. Here's my baby --

 

[Len44]

Holy Crap, Batman! Is that an XK-2R2? What Year? More details! More Pics! Restoration Schedule? Curious minds want to know!

In any case, Congrats! :bowdown:

 

[Rich]

Thanks, Len. It's a 1955 XK-140. My Uncle was the second owner and used to race her in autocross events (hence the roll bar). He upgraded the engine to an XKE engine to provide a little more HP for racing. I have since bored that engine out and added other enhancements, so I should be getting close to 400 HP! (original engine put out 190 HP) Drum brakes have been converted to disc, 4-speed to 5-speed, limited slip diff added, and a few other mods to bring the performance up to more modern standards. The restoration is taking forever. The guy is really slow, but he knows his stuff and does top-quality work. Theoretically, it should be finished by the end of this year. I'll post some more pics once it is a little further along.

 

[User211]

I didn't think it was possible, but that Jag is taking longer than my Duettas did to restore.

Anyway, some good points made in your posts which I enjoyed reading. Top stuff, as usual.

 

[twich54]

I would hardly think one would want to start down the rode of name-calling of politicians, particularly if of a certain political persuasion.

Why not...........regardless of party affiliation most are a bunch losers.

it is pretty clear in which political party the majority of the hypocrites hang out.

Len.....you can't be serious......well maybe you can, myself the older I get the more I can't stand any of them !

 

[Len44]

Why not...........regardless of party affiliation most are a bunch losers.

That I will grant you!

 

[amey01]

I didn't think it was possible, but that Jag is taking longer than my Duettas did to restore.

But the Jag took less time to post than the Martin Logans.....!

 

[User211]

But the Jag took less time to post than the Martin Logans.....!

He's posted the Jag a few times... but secretly has something other than MLs these days.

Ssssshhhh....

 

[Kevin]

I would hardly think one would want to start down the rode of name-calling of politicians, particularly if of a certain political persuasion. If we look at the relative number of self-righteous Congressmen (and former Congressmen) who have screeched at the top of their lungs about "family values" only to later have to resign due to affairs, preying on Congressional Pages, etc, etc., well, it is pretty clear in which political party the majority of the hypocrites hang out. One can readily include "Newt" in this roundup, as well as the latest embarrassment that is to be investigated for obstruction of justice stemming from the affair he had with the wife of an aide [John Ensign].

Not even getting into Jack Abramhoff and Tom Delay, and oh so many others convicted of corruption and sent to jail stemming from their service during the Bush years...:devil:

I'm not sure if calling Al Gore a hyprocrite, as concerns peoples carbon footprints, is really name calling. He matches the classic definition of one. You're correct, I would also call Newt a hyprocrite when it comes to marriage infedility. Anyone who doesn't practice what they are preaching meets that definition. However, the fact that the messenger is hyprocrtical doesn't exactly make the message wrong. I for one feel that without a doubt the planet is becoming more polluted do to human activity, wether or not the Earth is actually warming due to our activity is beyond me. I think National Geographic ran a story about how Mars is also going through a warming trend, so solar activity could have a part to play in Earths current warming patterns. I always have thought instead of harping on global warming, in which the exact cause is hard to prove, we should instead harp on air, water and land pollution in general which is a much easier case to make.

 

[Len44]

I'm not sure if calling Al Gore a hyprocrite, as concerns peoples carbon footprints, is really name calling. He matches the classic definition of one. You're correct, I would also call Newt a hyprocrite when it comes to marriage infedility. Anyone who doesn't practice what they are preaching meets that definition. However, the fact that the messenger is hyprocrtical doesn't exactly make the message wrong. I for one feel that without a doubt the planet is becoming more polluted do to human activity, wether or not the Earth is actually warming due to our activity is beyond me. I think National Geographic ran a story about how Mars is also going through a warming trend, so solar activity could have a part to play in Earths current warming patterns. I always have thought instead of harping on global warming, in which the exact cause is hard to prove, we should instead harp on air, water and land pollution in general which is a much easier case to make.

Hmmm... It seems pretty clear to most of us that global warming is well-established science. I certainly agree with you that mankind is not being very kind to This Good Earth, and that is at our peril.

BTW, I guess we can add "The Guvernator" as the latest Republican to have a "Family Values" issue. Now THAT is hypocritical! And sadly, all too typical...

 

[eknuds01]

Yeah big shock there...another Hollywood celebrity on the brink of divorce.

 

[Kevin]

Hmmm... It seems pretty clear to most of us that global warming is well-established science. I certainly agree with you that mankind is not being very kind to This Good Earth, and that is at our peril.

BTW, I guess we can add "The Guvernator" as the latest Republican to have a "Family Values" issue. Now THAT is hypocritical! And sadly, all too typical...

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my statement, "wether or not the Earth is actually warming due to our activity". I don't doubt that the Earth is currently warming. Of course, it has gone through many periods of warming and cooling cycles based upon climate research done using historical clues. What I'm not convinced of, is wether or not human activity is a partial or complete cuase of the warming. Like I said, I have read where other planets have been experiencing a warming cycle as well. By the same token, I'm not convinced that human activity isn't a cause either. If the Earth were currently going through a cooling period by the same degree in which it is warming, I'm betting that there would be a large number of people blaming human activity for that as well. Regardless, it is in everyone's best interest to leave the planet as clean as possible for future generations. When it comes to enviromental issues I'm more centered in my leanings. I'm that way on a number of social issues as well.

I don't follow CA politics very closely. So I'm not sure if Arnold ran on a strong "family values" platform. However, what he did was wrong wether he did or not, at least in my opinion. I think when a person gets married they should be commited to his/her spouse, as well as being commited to that commitment. I'm not really religious, so that comes more from a moral compass as opposed to a religious belief. To break that commitment, at least when it comes to infedility and particularly when children are involved, shows a lack of judgement. I like to think that politicians have a better since of judgement than my own, not less so. But if you think that republicans are the only ones that don't practice what they preach, you're being a bit naive. How many rich liberals call for higher taxes, only to then hirer lawyers and accountants to make sure they take advantage of every tax loophole, to get out of paying what they are preaching should be "their fair share"? Hyproctires abound in all political flavors. Which is why I believe in mostly a smaller government as I believe the original founders had in mind. The more the politicians stay out of my families business, the less I have to worry about what they are doing.

 

[Rich]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my statement, "wether or not the Earth is actually warming due to our activity". I don't doubt that the Earth is currently warming. Of course, it has gone through many periods of warming and cooling cycles based upon climate research done using historical clues. What I'm not convinced of, is wether or not human activity is a partial or complete cuase of the warming. Like I said, I have read where other planets have been experiencing a warming cycle as well. By the same token, I'm not convinced that human activity isn't a cause either.

Given that there are 6 billion of us on the planet now (way more than at any time in the history of this planet as far as we can tell), and the expansiveness of the industrial revolution over the last hundred years or so, with three-quarters of a billion motor vehicles spewing carbon fumes into the atmosphere daily, millions of factories doing the same, and considering the amount of deforestation we have been directly responsible for over the last century or two, it is quite unimaginable that we are not having an impact on our global climate. It is in our nature to minimize the detrimental impacts of the things that we enjoy doing, but looking at it logically, I don't think we can seriously question that we are causing an impact on our atmosphere that affects the temperature cycles. Now, to what degree our actions are altering the natural cycle is certainly difficult to pin down and there is lots of room for debate on that issue. But I don't see how anyone looking honestly at man's place in nature today compared to at any time in previous history could argue that our activities are certainly having a negative impact on our land, water, and atmosphere, and that we play at least some part in the current warming trend, which is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

 

[Kevin]

Given that there are 6 billion of us on the planet now (way more than at any time in the history of this planet as far as we can tell), and the expansiveness of the industrial revolution over the last hundred years or so, with three-quarters of a billion motor vehicles spewing carbon fumes into the atmosphere daily, millions of factories doing the same, and considering the amount of deforestation we have been directly responsible for over the last century or two, it is quite unimaginable that we are not having an impact on our global climate. It is in our nature to minimize the detrimental impacts of the things that we enjoy doing, but looking at it logically, I don't think we can seriously question that we are causing an impact on our atmosphere that affects the temperature cycles. Now, to what degree our actions are altering the natural cycle is certainly difficult to pin down and there is lots of room for debate on that issue. But I don't see how anyone looking honestly at man's place in nature today compared to at any time in previous history could argue that our activities are certainly having a negative impact on our land, water, and atmosphere, and that we play at least some part in the current warming trend, which is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

Ever hear of the Medieval Warming Period? I wouldn't say that we aren't having an impact on the climate, I suspect that we are just out of commonsense, as I think you have suggested, but how much can't be quantified and it really can't be 'proven' at all. Also, don't you agree that if the Earth were cooling right now, that we would be hearing about how human activity is the cause for the cooling? Much in the same way, as when I was a kid, that it was predicted that we would have global cooling as a result of greenhouse gases. People, including scientist, would be saying how they had been proven correct all along. I know for a fact that those arguments would be made. That is why I would attack the problem from just a pure, "we are polluting the planet", argument. That can be proven without a doubt. I'm all for reducing pollution where current technology and feasibility allows.

 

[Rich]

Ever hear of the Medieval Warming Period?

Yes, it is pretty well understood by science to be a myth, at least insofar as global mean temperatures being higher then than they are today.

 

[Cat Blu]

The earth will survive whatever we have/will do to it. The real question is "Will we survive what we are doing to the planet?"

As far as I am concerned we need to look at protecting the oceans first. The oceans give about 50% of our oxygen.